yagottabefarkinkiddinme:Before drafting women, which I am against... I would ask that men 55 years of age and below be selected for service. There are enough broken bodies and minds coming back from war, we don't need to expose women to this.

/aware women serve on front lines now//war sucks.

There's nothing wrong with women being exempt from the draft as long as we are consistent and also deny women equal rights.

NewportBarGuy:Even if he was a decorated war veteran, the guy (Rangel) is the very definition of what is wrong with Congress.

His draft sh*t is nonsense. "If we had a draft, then the rich, white people, would not start these wars."

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like that, it's never worked like that.

We'll ignore his numerous financial scandals and such. It's just stupid to keep screaming "A draft Army will stop all the needless wars!" because that's bullsh*t. You idiots doing your goddamn job and not drafting things like the Iraq War Resolution might prevent some wars from occurring.

Go away, Charlie. Please.

the biggest, bloodiest wars ever, the napoleonic wars, the american civil war, WWI and II, ... have only been so bloody and so long because conscription alowed a constant suply of cannon-fodder.Draft don't prevent war, draf prepares for long, bloody wars

NewportBarGuy:GAT_00: None of which has anything to do with women being required to register for the Selective Service.

It's what he does. Just not a fan of the dude. Of course they should be made to register, but the entire system is outmoded anyway. We don't live in an era where we would have the time to muster an Army if we really needed one. We'd be nuked, fragged, and disoriented before we even knew what hit us if we really needed a draft-size Army to face a modern threat.

Just save some money and cancel the entire selective service system.

That's actually wrong: The "bolt out of the blue" scenario is just not believable, there would always be a time of ramped-up tensions before an attack, and that's when you'd institute a draft.

dittybopper:NewportBarGuy: GAT_00: None of which has anything to do with women being required to register for the Selective Service.

It's what he does. Just not a fan of the dude. Of course they should be made to register, but the entire system is outmoded anyway. We don't live in an era where we would have the time to muster an Army if we really needed one. We'd be nuked, fragged, and disoriented before we even knew what hit us if we really needed a draft-size Army to face a modern threat.

Just save some money and cancel the entire selective service system.

That's actually wrong: The "bolt out of the blue" scenario is just not believable, there would always be a time of ramped-up tensions before an attack, and that's when you'd institute a draft.

yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939

Yep. Has been for a long time. They fire up the computers every few years to test them, just in case the draft ever has to be used, and the media always tries to manufacture a big brouhaha every time they do that, but the outrage never really materializes.

And yeah; if you're going to put women on the front lines, they should have to register for the draft. It's only fair.

On-Off:yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939

Ummm, France declared war on Germany in 1939, as did the UK. England sent tens of thousands of troops into France between September 1939 and May 1940, when the Germans actually invaded France. France called up it's military reserves, and drafted people.

Woman here.I wouldn't qualify for service anyway since I have a history of mental illness (depression) and an endocrine disorder. So I don't mind. And if I had to, I'd register for conscientious objector status anyway, since I actually am a pacifist. If I had to serve, I'd ask to be a medic.

Wait, wasn't this guy censured? I thought that means he doesn't matter anymore.

dittybopper:On-Off: yeah, that worked back when army moved on foot.Since mechanized war a.k.a "Blietzkrieg", not so much. Just look at France in 1939

Ummm, France declared war on Germany in 1939, as did the UK. England sent tens of thousands of troops into France between September 1939 and May 1940, when the Germans actually invaded France. France called up it's military reserves, and drafted people.

Really, do you even have a clue what you are talking about? You are mistaking military incompetence with unpreparedness. Those two can be related, but aren't necessarily.

Also, look at the United States in the same time period: The US started conscripting men into the service in the fall of 1940, well over a year before we were attacked by the Japanese, and even before we were involved in an undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic (which started for the US in mid-1941).

No, major wars always happen after a ramping up of tensions over months, and often years. Any attack against the US that requires widespread conscription will be telegraphed in advance.

well, bad exempleincompetence was the biggest factor in France's defeat, you are right.Actually, thinking about it -I read a bit about WWI- the thing I wonder the most is not that they lost so fast in WWII, it is that anyone was crazy/brave enough to go to war again under mostly the same stupid butcher generals as in WWI, only 20years later!